68 comments:

Alvin Platinga has dealt with this. Take time and read his work. WLC also spanked Alex Rosenberg on this very same suffering problem the past weekend here is a link to see how stupid atheism really is!

I've read lots of stuff by Alvin Plantinga. He is a Christian apologist. Do you know what that means? It means that he begins with the assumption that his particular version of god exists and goes on from there to argue that the properties of his god are consistent with science and rational thinking once you accept the premise(s).

I don't accept the premise. There is no god as far as I can tell. I really don't care whether Plantinga wants to defend the existence of pain because he believes in an evil, masochistic, Satan or whether he wants to explain it away because he believes in a kind. loving, version of the god who destroyed almost all of humanity in a giant flood.

The problem of evil is only a problem for theists, not for atheists.

Concerning Plantinga's latest book, Where the Conflict Really Lies, I was going to write a scathing review but Maarten Boudry beat me to it [Boudry vs Plantingua]. Here's a teaser from Boudry's review ....

if the bar for rational belief is lowered to mere logical possibility, and the demand for positive evidence dropped, then no holds are barred. Evolution (or gravity, plate tectonics, lightning, for that matter) could as well be directed by space aliens, Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster. (I was going to include the devil in the list, but then it turns out that, on page 59, Plantinga has no qualms at all about treating the horned one as a serious explanation. There goes my reductio.) ...

That's a problem that religious apologists rarely address, if they are even aware of it. Questions like the "problem of evil" are only problematic if one has a prior commitment to the position that a particular god exists. Once you allow for the likelihood that no god exists, then the problems disappear.

Apologetics remind me of the convoluted models of planetary motion that early astronomers had to construct in order to account for their observations while, at the same time, maintaining their belief in a geocentric universe. Once the commitment to geocentrism was dropped, it became much easier to explain the observations.

Pain and suffering and evil really is not a problem for theism, when I was an atheist it was a perfectly good question on why would a good God allow pain and suffering? I saw the problem in the same way as you did!

To be a true moral free agent you will have to be able to understand good and evil and your choices around them. Do you understand the problem of a perfect world and its implications on free will? Let me give you some examples. They are menial but give it some thought.

1.) In a perfect world, your favourite team will always win in every match it plays. ALWAYS!

2.) In a perfect world you cannot murder or be murdered.

3.) In a perfect world every person will win the lottery every single week.

4.) There will never be any accidents ever!

5.) It will be impossible in a perfect world to show any emotion because you will only have one. Happiness because everything is always perfect!

6.) How will love work in a perfect world?

My question to you is this. How will the world function if it is full of free agents that are unable to ever make a choice because the environment and world they live in through its perfection has made it impossible for them to exercise that fee will?

Doesn't your reasoning lead to the conclusion that the inhabitants of heaven are not true moral free agents?Or perhaps it implies that in heaven there is no wants or desires ~ that heaven is a totally inhuman place we should avoid if possible?

Here is what doesn't add up to be me about the "free will" argument. There are many things that we have the "free will" to do, but which we almost never choose to do. I have the "free will" to jab a fork into my eyeballs, but I have never come close to doing it because it would be too unpleasant for me to do so.

So even if we assume that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, and that it is a necessary part of this god's plan that humans have free will, this still does not explain why he has adjusted free will in such a way that humans so commonly choose to commit reprehensible acts. I see no reason that a god could not have created us so that we all have the free will to murder, steal or rape, while at the same time creating human nature so that such acts are so repugnant to everyone that no one ever commits them. Or, at least, people who do commit them could be as uncommon as those who willingly jab forks into their eyeballs.

It seems to me that would be a very simple solution to the problem of having to create a world in which human free will coexists with a minimum level of suffering, and I wonder why an omniscient god could not think of such a solution.

Your argument about a "perfect world" is a red herring. The questions of pain or evil would not arise if we existed in a world that was not perfect, one in which most people never win the lottery, in which your favourite sports team often loses, in which love affairs don't usually work out as you would have liked, etc., yet also one in which earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, famines and genocides never occurred. There is a vast range between a world that is "perfect" and one w/ the amount of suffering that exists in the world as we know it. And I fail to see why a supremely benevolent god would deliberately choose not to have created a world that was closer to the "no suffering" end of the spectrum than he did.

Surely there are theologians that have attempted to address this issue, but I am not aware of any. Perhaps you are?

@LutesuiteThe Gnostics had a view which goes some way to resolving your issues. As best I remember, it is that this world was actually created by a demiurge and not the God of light who is separate from the world except from that part of Him which is within us and has been trapped within matter. There's more to it than that of course, but that was their answer to the problem of evil and suffering, fwiw.

Sounds to me you want free will but also with some sort of a safety switch, just in case, btw the pain you get from stabbing yourself in the eye is a good pain, it actually acts as a survival mechanism. But back to the point, anything that prevents you from doing good or evil is interference and thus no free will, your choices will always be your own.

The argument from evil is not an argument against any and all conceptions of God. It is, rather, an argument against conceptions of God that define it as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. One response to the argument, of course, is to simply drop one of the "omni's" from the description of God and the argument no longer applies. But that response is not available to most current day theists, including the one's under discussion in Larry's OP.

@Andre Gross,

Yes, the pain from stabbin one's eye is a "good pain." That is irrelevent to my argument. The point is that this pain prevents pretty well everyone from actually stabbing themselves in the eye. Yet the fact remains that we still have the "free will" to stab ourselves in the eye should we so choose, for some reason. So we could have a similar device that makes it highly unpalatable for us to commit "evil" acts, and that would largely eliminate "evil" from the world. Yet we would all still have the "free will" to do evil if we choose. Otherwise you would have to argue that we do not have the "free will" to stab ourselves in the eye, which we obviously do.

Jeffrey Shallit has my sympathies for having to deal with TTC, who is on his usual Darwin condoned eugenics therefore Hitler schtick, but if nothing else that should give him some first hand experience with pain.

Since he seems to be in a masochistic mood perhaps we can send Gross, Luther and Byers over there.

On the other hand a scatological Luther/TTC deathmatch would be a very ugly thing so perhaps not.

Which begs the question, why would a good god allow for the existence of Luther Flint ?

@LarryYou say, "there is no god as far as I can tell", which would mean something if you'd gone any distance to try to tell, but you haven't, so it isn't. A bit like saying there is no evidence for God/evolution as far as the average baby can tell. But wait, there was that time in 1974 where you thought about it for 15 minutes and then brushed it off.

Speaking for myself, I don't have to go out myself and look for the evidence for evolution. There are a bunch of very smart scientists who have done that for me, and I just have to familarize myself with their work to know that evolution occurs.

I suppose theologians could do the same for God. But, for some reason, they never seem to produce anything resembling evidence. I'm not sure what the problem is there. It could be that no evidence for the existence of God actually exists. Or it could be that people like Craig and Plantinga are considered among the world's most brilliant theologians, and yet each of them are clearly blithering idiots. So maybe what we need are actual smart people to go into the field of theology, and they can find the evidence for God.

@LutesuiteSo you'd look at the evidence if it was offered to you? That is, you wouldn't just be pretending you wanted evidence such that when it was offered you'd run away or something and refuse to actually look at it. Just checking.

You're not following. It has been offered, I've looked at it, and it was obviously not something any objective rational person would accept as evidence. Philosophy is not evidence; it's argument, and theology even moreso.

If you've somehow got something that has eluded humankind for its entire existence, which is to say actual evidence that God exists, as opposed to the convoluted apologetic nonsense that you usually passes for evidence, then don't waste your time giving it to me on this blog. Alert the media and tell the world. And congratulations in advance on your Nobel Prize.

Let's hear your objection then you clown. This is the most tried and tested method in the history of humanity,, and yet you, who knows nothing of it, already knows it's nonsense because a whole load of people who likewise know nothing about it told you so.

In a way, though, you can admire Luther for his honesty. His "evidence" for God is really no different than that of noted theologian William Lane Craig, who says God can only be apprehended thru the "witness of the Holy Spirit", which is probably much like a shroom trip. Yet Craig tries to gussy his fantasy up with a bunch of pseudointellectual flapdoodle to give it a veneer of intellectual respectability. At least Luther is above all that. He flat out admits he has no argument or evidence.

@LutesuiteAnd since you won't be able to answer that question, let me ask some others. You say you won't accept direct experience, and you say you won't accept argument, so what will you accept as evidence? And what evidence is there that does not have to be experienced?

@OberskiBack to your favourite subject, my turds. What's your obsession? Anyway, the fact is that entheogens have a historical usage dating back tens of thousands of years and yet you, without the slightest knowledge of them either personally or through science (because there is no science on them to speak of), have manged to conclude that there is nothing to it. That would appear to be a simple armchair rejection based on prejudice and not any serious opinion to even be considered at greater length that this post here. You are dismissed until you have at least some idea what you're talking. Bye.

It has been hours and still no T-Rex with a pizza for me. I got tired of waiting for evidence of "God" so I nuked and ate a TV dinner.

Of course I could still be convinced of the existence of "God" if someone would turn up a talking snake.

I just thought of something else that I would accept as evidence of "God". Some sheep or goats born with stripes, speckles, or spots, just because their parents mated in front of some striped branches. Should be a cinch for "God".

@RumraketIt happens all the time - very common actually. Anyway, the question was addressed to the experts so that I could see how it is that they've got the expertise they say they have and yet still say the things they do.

Who said I won't accept direct experience? Most evidence is based on direct experience of reproducible phenomena. And what you are describing is reproducible evidence of the effects of psychoactive substances on the human nervous system. Not of God or talking snakes or whatever you are claiming.

@LutesuiteYou won't accept direct experience. When direct experience contradicts your religious views you explain it away as an effect of psychoactive substances - as if serotonin wasn't a psychoactive substance! Anyway, what did you make of it when time stopped?

So, "evidence" and "direct experience" of "God" is found by getting high on entheogens in silent darkness. Which "God"? Does the "evidence" and "direct experience" disappear if there's daylight or lights are turned on or if the entheogen ingester cuts a noisy fart?

Drug-induced hallucinationMain article: HallucinogenDrug-induced Hallucinations are hallucinations that are caused by the consumption of psychoactive substances such as deliriants. Along with deliriants, psychedelics, certain stimulants, and opiates are known to cause visual and auditory hallucinations. Some psychedelics such as Lysergic acid diethylamide, cannabis, and psilocybin can cause hallucinations that range from a spectrum of mild to severe. Opiates are also a popular drug used to induce hallucinations, especially in larger doses. This as well as other drugs that induce hallucinations can cause severe mental and physical damage. Some of the most common opiates are opium, heroin and morphine. Despite the addictive properties of some of these drugs (mainly opiates and mental dependencies in some cannabis users), others can be used in psychotherapy to treat mental disorders, addiction and even experiments.[26]

And:

SCHIZOPHRENIC HALLUCINATION Hallucinations caused by schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is when one is unable to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences, accompanied by the inability to think logically, have contextually appropriate emotions, and to function in social situations.[42] Scientifically reviewed. 21 October 2012. Web. It has been found that when one experiences a hallucination induced by Schizophrenia, there are many abnormalities that are going on in the brain; Particularly in the region that processes voices in sounds (for those who experience auditory hallucinations) and visual processing. (visual hallucinations). According to studies and experiments conducted by researchers, it was seen that a possible cause for these hallucinations were abnormalities in gray matter and general functioning that combines interpreting sounds, voices and visuals, as well as regulating emotions.[43]

@TWTYeah, so what. We don't even have a clue yet what happens when we have normal conscious experience let alone what happens when we experience, eg, time stopping, or when, eg, the double helix shape of DNA is revealed to humanity by the "other".

@TWTThe "other" is a general term for whatever/whoever humanity has been in touch with through the ages. That which we're not normally aware of but which we can become aware of through certain techniques which have been developed and used for millennia, but which you reject a priori because of your commitment to, for want of a better way of putting it, serotonin only.

Please stop responding to Luther Flint and andyboerger unless, by accident, they make a valid point. I don't want to ban trolls but if the rest of you continue to feed them then I will have no choice. The comment sections of my posts are becoming polluted with meaningless garbage.

There are now 59 comments in this thread and almost all of them are not worth reading.

Recent Comments

Principles of Biochemistry 5th edition

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Superstition

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerlyseemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.

Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.

The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.

Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.

The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.